Tanen v. Sw. Airlines Co.
Decision Date | 26 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. B217818.,B217818. |
Citation | 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 743,187 Cal.App.4th 1156 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Mitch TANEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant and Respondent. |
Gutride Safier, Adam J. Gutride, Seth A. Safier, San Francisco, and L. Jay Kuo for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Morrison & Foerster, Jane H. Barrett, Ruth N. Borenstein, and Teri M. Stein, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff and appellant Mitch Tanen (Tanen) bought a $100 travel certificate from defendant and respondent Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest) in February 2005. He attempted to redeem it 14 months later, after its stated expiration date. When Southwest refused to honor the travel certificate, Tanen sued, asserting that the expiration date violated Civil Code section 1749.5, which makes it unlawful to sell a gift certificate that contains an expiration date. Southwest demurred, contending that Tanen's claims werepreempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). (49 U.S.C. § 41713.) The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer.
We affirm. For a claim to be preempted by the ADA, two things must be true: (1) the claim must relate to airline rates, routes or services; and (2) the claim must derive from the enactment or enforcement of state law. Here, both prongs of this test are met. First, Tanen's claims relate to "services" because they concern Southwest's sale of gift certificates that can be used to purchase airline travel. Second, his claims derive from state law because it is on a California statute, Civil Code section 1749.5, that Tanen bases his claim that the expiration date on the face of the gift certificate is unenforceable. We thus agree with the trial court that Tanen's claims are preempted by the ADA.
Tanen filed the present action against Southwest on May 17, 2006. He filed a first amended class action complaint (complaint) on June 1, 2006. The complaint alleged that Southwest sells travel certificates, which are redeemable for airline tickets; drink certificates, which are redeemable for alcoholic beverages on Southwest flights; and vacation certificates, which are redeemable for Southwest vacation packages. Tanen purchased a $100 travel certificate on February 5, 2005, by submitting a completed "SWA Gift Certificate order form" (order form) and credit card information. The order form stated, in relevant part, that " '[a]ll gift certificates expire one year from the date of issue and will not be extended unless prohibited by law.' " Tanen subsequently received a $100 travel certificate, which stated that it expired on "02-07-06." It also stated that " '[t]he certificate must be redeemed and travel must be completed by the expiration date shown on the face of the Gift Certificate' " and the " '[v]alidity period will not be extended.' "
The complaint alleged that under Civil Code section 1749.5, " " Accordingly, the complaint asserted that the expiration of the Southwest travel, drink, and vacation certificates gave rise to the following causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1749.5; (2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 ( ); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1750 (Consumer Legal Remedies Act); (4) breach of written contract; (5) conversion; (6) fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; and (7) declaratory relief. It sought compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Southwest demurred. It contended that all of Tanen's claims were preempted by the ADA, which preempts any state " 'law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route or service of an air carrier.' " Further, it asserted that many of Tanen's causes of action were not properly pled, section 1749.5 does not provide for a private right of action, and the vacation and drink certificate claims were not properly before the court.
Concurrently with its demurrer, Southwest filed a motion to strike all references to and all causes of action relating to vacation and drink certificates. Southwest asserted that Tanen could not challenge the expiration of vacation certificates because they do not expire. Further, he could not adequately plead causes of action as to vacation or drink certificates because he did not purchase either. Finally, because he never purchased vacation or drink certificates, Tanen did not have standing to raise claims relating to their issuance, nor did he have claims typical of the putative class.
The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend on March 6, 2007. Its order stated as follows:
The court sustained the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend, with amendment limited solely to an attempt to state causes of action pertaining to drink and vacation certificates.
Tanen did...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swiftair, LLC v. Sw. Airlines Co.
...by expressly referring to them or by having a significant economic effect upon them." ’ " ( Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1166-1167, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 743 ( Tanen ); see All World Professional Travel Services, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2003) 282 ......
-
People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transp., Inc.
...Wolens, Rowe, and Dan's City each establish when a claim is expressly preempted. (See, e.g., Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1166–1167, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 743.) Based on these cases, in order to find FAAAA preemption here, defendants must show that the People's UCL......
- Rose v. Bank of Am.
-
Valencia v. Wells Fargo Bank
...§§ 581d, 904.1, subd. (a)(1); Serra Canyon Co. v. California Coastal Com. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 663, 667; Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1162.) We review de novo the ruling on the demurrers, exercising our independent judgment to determine whether a cause of a......